Pakistan rejects US CENTCOM report on Nato attack

In letter to US congress, Pakistan says allied forces were informed of troops presence, attack not...


Express December 27, 2011

Pakistan has rejected US Central Command’s (CENTCOM) report on the Nato attack that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers at Salala check post, Express News reported on Tuesday.

In a letter to the United States (US) Congress, Pakistan says Nato commanders were informed about the presence of Pakistani troops on the border within 15 minutes of the attack, but the firing continued for an hour.

Pakistan stated that since the allied forces were informed, the attack cannot be termed as 'miscommunication’.

The Pentagon report outlined that US forces had failed to verify the location of Pakistani units before ordering the attack but blamed Pakistani forces for firing first.

Earlier, the American media, quoting a US probe into the airstrike, said that both US and Pakistani forces share the blamed for the attack.

American and Western officials said that that retaliation from allied forces of US and Afghanistan was justified because the Pakistani forces “initiated the fire”.

The officials had revealed that Nato did not inform Pakistan that they were about to launch an operation on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, which resulted in the Pakistani forces opening fire on them.

The American and Western officials further said that the US military investigation report also shunned the accusations from Pakistani forces that they were “intentionally and repeatedly” targeted by the allied forces on November 26.

COMMENTS (8)

Tim Hover | 9 years ago | Reply

@Harry Stone:

US is considering an apology my friend, dont just follow what american media feeds you day in day out.

Harry Stone | 9 years ago | Reply

@Iron hand:

They have. And as you have stated these are nothing more than allegations. These will not be addressed.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ

E-Publications

Most Read